blog one

In addition to the assigned reading, I opted to read the prologue to The Field. This section illustrated the author's formulation of her argument. To play devil's advocate to Lynne McTaggart's assertion that "The Newtonian world might have been law-abiding, but ultimately it was a lonely, desolate place" (XXIV), isn't it possible that she supports the idea of the Field being the ultimate reality because she wants there to be a giant connection amongst all things in the universe, instead of being a cold, impersonal place as Newton and Descartes suggested?

Later in the prologue, she expresses that some of today's physicists (the ones responsible for experiments having to do with the Zero Point Field) "offered us, in a sense, a science of religion...there was a purpose and unity to our world and our place within it, and we had an important say in it" (XXVIII). Again, merely to play the villain: what if there is no larger purpose to the universe? What if we are merely pawns or simply a small part of the natural chain of evolution? Also--although many great minds throughout history have asserted the same thing--isn't it a bit presumptious to express that humans are the center of the world (XXVIII)?

My initial response to chapters 1-3 of The Field was that it was a lot of information to digest. Although the McTaggart insinuated that the book would develop into more than a primer on quantum physics, that's all we've really gotten to read so far. She touched on experiments with consciousness and ESP, a universal connection amongst all things (organic and inorganic), and the relationship between science and religion (and how that relationship might change in our eyes as a result of reading her book). The brief mention of these topics got me to do exactly what McTaggart intended: to think about them.

Ed Mitchell's story (chapter 1), for me, sparked questions about his experiments communication. One of these questions was in regard to the success of his mental communication experiment while aboard the Apollo 14. Ed believed human minds share a connection, which got me thinking, maybe our minds are connected, we just have to remove the learned barriers and allow this (possibly) natural communication...?

As far as chapter 2 was concerned, I mostly underlined concepts so as to better understand the theories being presented (and, since I don't know a whole lot about physics, let alone quantum physics, I didn't have too much of an issue with what was presented). It was interesting, however, to learn that there is so much that can be theoretically proposed by transposing successful experiments from one area of science to another; it seems like anything could be possible.

Fritz-Albert Popp's story (chapter 3) was the most relevant to me at this point, as my grandmother is actively dying of cancer. Reading about alternative treatments--no matter how outlandish or experimental--is a matter of personal interest to me. His experiments with the cucumbers and potatoes supported his stance that living things emit a certain amount of light and through our consumption of plants, we experience a sort-of bioaccumulation of photo-energy. Popp's theory of the relationship between photo-energy and cancer development and treatment, in my opinion, was intellectual brilliance and his machine was innovative genius.

McTaggart expands upon the implied communication amongst cells (based on Popp's experimental results) in reference to the mystery of how the human body forms the way it does. She writes, "Each cell...needs to be able to know about its neighboring cells to work out how it fits into the overall scheme. This requires nothing less than an ingenious method of communication between cells at a very early stage of the embryo's development and the same sophistication every moment of our lives" (46). This appears to me to be somewhat of a pro-life statement. I inferred this meaning due to her wording, as bolded in the quote above.